GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the order dated 28. 4. 1995 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 2 Nagaur in Civil Suit Not 10/94 rejecting the application filed by the defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for the amendment of the written statement.
(2.) THE short facts of the case are that non-petitioner Rukma Devi and Hukma Ram filed suit for declaration and possession of the property situated in Village Rol against petitioner Ram Prasad and two others stating that he had purchased the suit property from Chandulal and that Ram Prakash is his tenant. THE suit was resisted by the petitioner-defendant Ram Prasad on the ground that he was not the tenant plaintiffs and that Chandulal had no authority to sell whole of the property as he was not the sole owner. On these pleadings, as many as 12 issues were framed. After 6 witnesses of plaintiffs were examined, the defendant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC praying for amendment in the written statement that he had purchased the half of the property from Bansilal who was co-owner of the property in the year 1986 i. e. after the filing of the suit and, therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled to decree. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs on the ground that since suit was pending against the disputed property it could not be sold and that Bansilal did not have any right in the property. It was further pleaded that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit as also the nature of the cause of action. THE learned trial Judge dismissed the defendant's application. Hence, this revision. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the copies of the pleadings placed before me. It is not in dispute that defendant is in possession of the suit property. At the time the suit was filed, the defendant had not purchased the properly and, therefore, he could not raise plea which he now seeks to raise. However, in the written statement it was pleaded that the suit property did not belong exclusively to Chandulal as this properly was ancestral and Bansilal had also share in the property. The defendant did not admit that he was tenant of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have sought declaration on their title as well. The defendant by the proposed amendment wants to establish his title by saying that the suit property has been sold by him by the co-owner of the property. The proposed amendment, in my opinion does not change the nature of the suit. To avoid the multiplicity of the suits also the defendant should be allowed to contest the suit on this plea as well. True it is that the application has been made after much delay but for this the plaintiffs can be compensated with costs. It is well settled that the rules of procedure are meant for advancement of justice and not for hampering the justice and if the amendment is necessary to determine the real question between the parties, it should be allowed. As already, stated, by the proposed amendment the nature of the suit was not changed. It has, therefore, to be found that the learned trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. Therefore, there is need of interference in this revision. It is not necessary to consider the effect of Section 52 of the T. P. Act while disposing of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The application of the defendant for amending the written statement is allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 500/- to the plaintiffs. .;